Sunday, May 31, 2009

You're Invited to a 'POLITICS ON THE ROCKS' Wine Tasting Event at The Estate House





Group: Republican Professionals: "Politics on the Rocks"



Subject: You're Invited to a Wine Tasting Event at The Estate House in Old Town Scottsdale...




Republican Professionals: "Politics on the Rocks" is proud to announce that we are having a wine tasting event at The Estate House located at 7134 East Stetson Drive, Suite 200 (Directly across the canal from Olive and Ivy) in Old Town Scottsdale on Thursday, June 11th at 6:00 PM.


We have the entire Upstairs Lounge reserved for this event. Come join us for a fun evening of "Conservatives & Cocktails" and network with our honored guests Barry Goldwater Jr., Mayor Vernon Parker, Mayor Jim Lane, Senator Jon Paton, Former State Chairman John Munger, the Hon. Clancy Jayne, KFYI's Mike Broomhead, Shiree Verdone, and David Schweikert.



Please RSVP as soon as possible because space is limited. We had over 300 professionals at our last networking event. As usual, admission to this event is free. Should you wish to partake in the wine tasting we have secured a special rate of $10 which includes 3 oz pours of the four wines listed below.



The following wines will be poured by Craig Chaillie head Sommelier at The Estate House:

Bex, QbA Riesling, Mosel-Saar-Ruwer, Germany 2007

Loaded with peachy fruit and a layer of acidity against the fruit, with notes of honey, pear, and minerals that linger in the palate afterwards. Just enough sweetness to give it a refreshing edge.

Tunnel of Elms, Chardonnay, California 2007

This wine exhibits bright citrus and tropical fruit aromas and flavors, with a rich, creamy texture.Ray’s Station, Merlot, California 2004Well-balanced and complex, with layers of spicy plum, black cherry and cassis and underlying hints of tobacco and coffee bean. On the palate the lush fruit is balanced by firm tannins and a nice acidity. The finish is lingering and smoky.



Tunnel of Elms, Cabernet Sauvignon, California 2007

Intense black fruit aromas and rich plum and black cherry flavors accented by wild herb and black pepper tones.

Regards,
Republican Professionals: "Politics on the Rocks"



To RSVP please cut and paste the following links into your internet explorer bar:


Facebook RSVP: CLICK HERE

Evite RSVP: CLICK HERE

Prediction: TOP TEN REASONS Sotomayor won't be confirmed




TOP TEN REASONS SOTOMAYOR WON'T BE CONFIRMED (& how to stop her)

I generally support the idea of nominating a woman or a Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court, but not this one, not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And she's sobiased, that I'll go out on a limb to predict she won't be confirmed, for ten reasons:

10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCH
In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.

9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE
Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives.Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed. Since I was born to a single mom who courageously gave me up for adoption,and I was adopted at agethree by a Christian family, I'm passionately pro-life.

8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON,ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENT
In her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. But as a former military distinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New York State high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms.

7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?
ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1. She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'" Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally. But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.

6) SOTOMAYOR: SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
NOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice." There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.

5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURT
Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed. One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision, another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously. She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."

4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAW
Sotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified. She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion. Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.

3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW
Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity." No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution.

2) SOTOMAYOR: EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!
As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities. No kidding! When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap). Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents. So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance. I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!

WHY DID SEVEN REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HER?
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was forced to pick Sotomayor, ina back-room deal manipulated by powerful New York Senator Patrick Moynihan, but Bush Sr.likely regrets this just like he later regretted nominating Justice Souter.
In 1998,Sotomayor was barely confirmed to the 2nd Circuit Court under Bill Clinton, but only seven current 2009 Republicans voted for Sotomayor then: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Robert Bennett (R-Utah). They were misled into joining all Democrats to push Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28. Perhaps you might call these 7 Republicans (and all Southern Democrats, and both Penn. Democrats Specter and Casey, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.) at 202-225-3121 and ask them to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Judge Sotomayor. But remember, 100 emails = 10 phone calls = 1 fax in political capital, since the Senate staffers must handle each paper and usually write a reply. So please join our automated fax campaign first!

ALL TRUE CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE AGAINST HER
In 1998, twenty-eight conservative Senators united against Sotomayor, but now we need 40 to uphold a filibuster. Two leading conservative Senatorshave already questioned her credentials: "The role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CLINTONS By DICK MORRIS



Published on
TheHill.com on May 26, 2009


Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best:
"I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in."

President Obama seems to echo Johnson's management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a "monster").

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Part of Hillary's problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront.

State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.

For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama's predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.

Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton's free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.

Bill can't even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.

Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.

How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she'll stay loyal.

But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama's equal -- and before that his superior -- she now looks tiny compared to the president.


She doesn't look like a president in waiting; she's more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork.


She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice.

She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama's web and cannot easily escape.


Go to
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

What would Obama do without his teleprompter?

Joe Biden asks what will he do now that he has broken Barack Obama's teleprompter so we at Expose Obama ask the same question. What would he do without his crutch?Visit http://exposeobama.com for more information on Obama.



CLICK HERE TO SEE 'OBAMA & HIS TELEPROMPTER'

VIOLENT VERSES – PART 13 BY HJS


In 1918, Senator Hiram Warren Johnson from California noted that the Truth is the first casualty of war. That is only one of the shames of warfare, for each side somehow seems to develop its own truths. Unfortunately, many of those on the sidelines know little about what is going on, except what one side or the other has sworn “is the truth.” The peculiar problem with people who know little is, the less they know, the more stridently they broadcast it.

The United States has a media with great writers, equipment, and a population eager for news and information. However, with a few exceptions, this media could easily be led by the late Reich Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels. The news and information people need cannot be handled by what is left of the media. It is up to the people then to do what we can to help ourselves.

In the propaganda war between the people of the West and those of the East, the East seems to be winning. We in the West have no media to fight for us any more, and those that might, are simply not interested in the cause.

One of the battles we are fighting vis-à-vis propaganda, is that the West is so iniquitous, that the Deity commands that people of the East fight us.

O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness. (Sura 9:123)

Arabic Text

[9:123] يٰۤـاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا قَاتِلُوْا الَّذِيْنَ يَلُوْنَكُمْ مِّنَ الْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُوْا فِيْكُمْ غِلْظَةً‌ ؕ وَاعْلَمُوْاۤ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِيْنَ‏

Source: http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=9&verse=120

Original Text – Message of the Qur’an
1

(With respect to Bedouins…) And whenever they spend anything for the sake of God, be it a little or much (for the war effort or emergencies) and whenever they move on earth, in God’s cause – it is recorded in their favor, and God will grant them the best reward for all that they are doing. {121)

With all this, it is not desirable that all of the believers take the field in time of war. From within every group in their midst, some shall refrain from going forth to war, and shall devote themselves instead to acquiring a deeper knowledge of their faith, and thus be able to teach their home-coming brethren, so that these too might guard themselves against evil. {122}
O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those deniers of the truth who are near you, and let them find you adamant;
2 and know that God is with those who are conscious of him. {123}

Comments

In his introduction to the Sura
[3], Maududi pointed out that the first part of the text raked the followers over the coals a little for not joining or supporting their Prophet in his quest to find the Roman legion at Tabuk. However, Allah eventually forgave them and pointed out that not everyone was suited for a warrior under all circumstances and that some had to remain home to fight the larger jihad, increasing one’s knowledge and one’s commitment to Allah. According to Muhammad, waging war was the lesser jihad.
It could also be pointed out that the Roman legion had not threatened the followers or Yathrib/Medina in any way, so that taking a force of 30,000 warriors to attack a Roman legion that was not threatening Islam, could hardly be considered a defensive war. Perhaps we should also mention in passing that the Roman legion would not have been as easy a foe as the Meccan shopkeepers.

Of course, readers of Politico Mafioso have seen that such sobriquets as deniers of the truth, idolaters, unbelievers, etc., are those given to the Meccans who fought with Muhammad in the seventh century. These people, along with the Christians and Jews, some of whom fought on either side, have no link with the present and therefore, no such references apply. If some Arabs today continue to rant about conquering the earth, perhaps they should remember that it is nobler to first conquer themselves and be the best of the faithful, leaving other Arabs and other nationalities in peace to be the best they can be in their own faiths. In other words, it is time to BUTT OUT and go about their own business, seeing to their families and their friends, learning more about this world and themselves. Retaliation for grievances real or imagined only go so far; there is a time to forget and a time to move on.

Remember that in Hadith 1:38, the Prophet (pbuh) said,
“Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the
nights.”

And to those of us who are new to the world of our battle of cultures, it is time to learn a little more about this world of ours. In Phoenix, Arizona remember this website and also tune your computers (or radios) to the Middle East Radio Forum, KKNT 960, each Sunday at noon Arizona time, or
http://www.blogger.com/ , or http://www.blogger.com/ for the latest no-punches-pulled reviews of Middle East miracles or catastrophes.

With two more rogue nations with clowns for CEOs being welcomed by our government into the world of the nuclear-armed, one can never know what tomorrow will bring, so please do not die without at least knowing why.

HJS


1 Message of the Qur’an, Muhammad Asad, Oriental Press, Dubai, 2003, pages 319-320
2 Uncompromising with regard to ethical principals.
[3] Downloadable (free) version of the Qur’an, http://www.blogger.com/ , sura 9 Introduction

Friday, May 29, 2009

Sen. John McCain Endorses Meg Whitman in Calif. Governor Race



By: Dan Weil

Arizona Sen. John McCain will announce his support for Republican Meg Whitman in California’s 2010 gubernatorial race Friday, a Whitman spokesman says.

"We are thrilled to have someone of his stature as part of the team," spokesman Mitch Zak told Associated Press.

Whitman, former chief executive of eBay, was a national co-chair of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and advised him on economic issues.

She seeks to replace incumbent Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who can’t run for a third straight term and has lost popularity amid California’s financial crisis anyway.
Whitman has earned support from other powerful Republicans on the national scene as well. Former California Gov. Pete Wilson is her campaign chairman, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has endorsed her.

Sotomayor And 'Disparate Impact' By by Stuart Taylor National Journal Magazine




Underlying Judge Sonia Sotomayor's most controversial decision -- her vote last year against 18 white firefighters (including one Hispanic) who were denied promotions on account of their race -- is a painful conflict between two civil-rights principles that were once seen as complementary.
The first principle is the anti-discrimination ideal embodied by the original 1964 Civil Rights Act and by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of a nation where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." That ideal rejects intentional discrimination against -- or preferences for -- individuals based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex, and calls instead for allocating opportunities based on individual ability and effort.

The second principle redefines "discrimination" to include the use by employers of any merit-based tests or other objective criteria for hiring or promotion that have a "disparate impact" on different ethnic groups -- as almost all objective tests have.

Even employers who intend no discrimination can be held liable to ethnic groups that fare badly on their tests unless the employers can prove to the satisfaction of often-skeptical courts that the tests (or other selection criteria) are required by "business necessity."

The surest way for employers to avoid such disparate-impact liability has been to discard the anti-discrimination principle and allocate jobs and promotions in part on the basis of ethnicity, as detailed below.
In the firefighters case--on which the Supreme Court heard arguments in April -- the city of New Haven, Conn., has defended its denial of promotions to the white firefighters, who had the highest scores on a test of job-related skills, as necessary to avoid a disparate-impact lawsuit by blacks. None of the African-Americans did well enough on the test to qualify for promotion.

Two Hispanic-American judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit -- both appointed by President Clinton -- took dramatically contrasting positions last year on the white firefighters' anti-discrimination lawsuit against the city.

A three-judge panel including Sotomayor upheld, and adopted
as its own, a federal District judge's ruling against the white firefighters. The panel set aside the anti-discrimination principle on the grounds that New Haven feared (among other things) that promoting the whites "would subject the city to public criticism" and would probably result in a disparate-impact lawsuit by blacks "that, for political reasons, the city did not want to defend."

So much for the anti-discrimination principle -- not to mention President Obama's professed desire to find judges with "empathy" for, among others, wronged workers who sue employers and for people who invoke their "individual rights" against governments.

The other Clinton-appointed Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes, was so disturbed when he learned of the panel's curiously "perfunctory disposition" that he sought to have it reconsidered by the full 2nd Circuit. He lost by a 7-6 vote. In a dissent for the six, Cabranes suggested that the case might involve "an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside." He added:

"At its core, this case presents a straightforward question:
May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?"

Back in 1971, when the Supreme Court first grafted disparate-impact rules onto the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they seemed to complement the anti-discrimination ideal.

The problems addressed by the 1971 decision were the difficulty of proving intent to discriminate and the fact that many companies -- especially those employing blue-collar workers without college educations -- were evading the 1964 act's ban on overt discrimination by using written tests designed less to measure job-related skills than to screen out blacks.

The Court's response was to rule that any test with a "disparate impact" on blacks -- meaning that disproportionate numbers had low scores -- was presumed to be invalid unless required by "business necessity." Lack of intent to discriminate was no defense to such a disparate-impact suit. This remains the law today, although the Court and Congress (in 1991) have tinkered with the detailed rules.
Over the decades since 1971, fewer and fewer employers have engaged in intentional racial discrimination against blacks or Hispanics. Likewise, the objective tests used by employers -- including the New Haven fire department's written and oral promotional exams -- have been more and more carefully designed to be valid measures of job-related skills.
Two things have remained constant, however. First, blacks and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics, score markedly lower on average than whites and Asians on objective tests of job-related skills -- whether for firefighter, police officer, manufacturing worker, or other blue-collar jobs.

This is what one might expect in a nation still plagued by vastly unequal educational opportunities and academic performance. Studies show, for example, that on average, the math and reading levels of black 17-year-olds are no higher than those of whites and Asians in the eighth grade. And the gap is not closing.

The second constant is the reluctance of employers either to risk the expense and bad publicity of a disparate-impact suit -- no matter how unwarranted -- or to gamble on their ability to prove job-relatedness and business necessity to the satisfaction of whichever judge they may draw.

Some judges seem to indulge the elitist fantasy that the knowledge measured by objective tests has little to do with non-college-educated workers' ability to perform well in positions such as fire lieutenant. Other judges stress -- with more validity -- that objective tests cannot measure such subjective assets as leadership ability.

For these reasons, fear of disparate-impact suits has prompted many employers either to do away with objective tests entirely or to use racial preferences insofar as necessary to hire and promote more low-scoring minorities, or both.

New Haven's decision not to promote the high-scoring white firefighters was a variation on this theme. Local civil service rules -- designed to avoid the awarding of promotions based on personal or political favoritism -- would not allow the city to promote low-scoring blacks. So the city decided not to promote the high-scoring whites either, even at the cost of leaving many officer positions vacant for years.

The disparate-impact dynamic has the benefit of expanding opportunities for preferred minorities. But it also has great costs. It is unjust to high-scoring white and Asian workers; it has greatly eroded the anti-discrimination principle; and it downgrades incentives for students and workers to study and learn -- both in school and in rigorous test-preparation courses such as the one that helped some New Haven firefighters improve their skills and do well on the test.

That is a most unhealthy message to be sending to blue-collar families at a time when America's competitiveness is being crippled by the inferior educations of many of our high school graduates compared with those in other developed countries.

Professed fear of disparate-impact lawsuits can also provide excuses for government employers that want to discriminate against white workers. Why would they want to do that? The main reason is identity politics -- for which, I argued in my
May 23 column, Sotomayor seemed to exude some sympathy in a 2001 speech.

Indeed, the evidence in the New Haven case strongly suggests that racial politics was the city's main reason for snatching away the white firefighters' expected promotions, amid intense political pressure to give blacks a share.

Even the Obama Justice Department found fault, in a friend-of-the-court brief, with the failure of Sotomayor and her colleagues to question whether the city's professed concern about disparate-impact liability "may be a pretext" for racial politics. But the brief also argued that the city should prevail in any further proceedings if it can show a reasonable basis for fearing that it might lose a disparate-impact suit.

In any event, such reverse racial discrimination will persist -- and perhaps become ever more pervasive -- for as long as employers fear disparate-impact liability more than they fear liability for intentional discrimination against whites and Asians.

The five more conservative Supreme Court justices, who value the anti-discrimination principle more than their liberal colleagues do, are well aware of this. They seem likely to reverse the decision by Sotomayor and her panel colleagues in the New Haven case and rule for the high-scoring white firefighters. In the process, they may also make it easier for employers who intend no discrimination to fend off disparate-impact lawsuits in the future, the better to reduce the incentives for reverse discrimination against whites and Asians.

But in the long run, soon-to-be-Justice Sotomayor and other judicial nominees chosen by Obama and his successors will be the people who determine whether the anti-discrimination principle and Dr. King's dream will live on, or whether they will be swept into the dustbin of history.

NORTH KOREA: THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN


Published on DickMorris.com on May 27, 2009

Printer-Friendly Version

When the Japanese military invaded Manchuria in the early 1930s, Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan's own government watch nervously to see what the League of Nations and the Western powers would do. Now it is North Korea and Iran who are watching and wondering.

If the United Nations, and the powers it represents, is as impotent as was the League in the 1930s, it will send the same signal to other would-be proliferators: that the rest of the world will sit by and do
nothing. By so blatantly flouting international opinion and U.N.
resolutions, North Korea has essentially said to the rest of the world: "put up or shut up."


The irony, of course, is that North Korea is probably the single state in the world most vulnerable to international sanctions. It produces no energy of its own. If China chose to bring the country to its knees, it could do so in a heartbeat. But will they?

China is worried about triggering a flood of North Korean refugees across its borders and tends to be protective of its erstwhile ally.


But the real pressure point on China is Japan. If the Japanese signal that they will respond to the North Korean nuclear test with a decision to change its constitution and develop nuclear weapons itself, the impact on both China and North Korea will be intense.

But the most important actor is, of course, President Barack Obama. It is really he who is being tested. If he simply settles for ineffectual sanctions or a round of international condemnation, he will be showing a weakness that virtually invites exploitation by the rest of the world. If he only pursues diplomatic negotiations without economic or military clout behind them, the other aggressors - the latter day Hitlers and Tojos - will draw their own conclusions.

And what will be the tone and the role of the new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
Peter Rodman, former aide to Kissinger, wrote in his splendid book Presidential Command that the Department of State "...can rarely
ever bring itself to admit that diplomacy is not working; in its mind, diplomacy is perpetually deserving of 'one more chance.' Sometimes this seems to degenerate into dialogue for its own sake, without regard to results or strategy or even the leverage that might make dialogue more fruitful."

If Hillary meekly goes along with an Obama policy of accommodation, she will lose forever her ability to portray herself as a national security hawk - a crucial step for any woman running for president.

In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will also be watching to see how Obama and Clinton react. He will want to know if there is any starch behind America's demand that Iran stop its own progress toward the bomb. If the Obama Administration folds, he will know that he must depend on his own military to act, even in the face of global anger, since the United States will be paralyzed as long as Obama is at the helm.


Just as the key question for Bush was when would he resort to diplomacy, given his reputation for war? So the real issue with Obama is when will he fight given his penchant for negotiation?

In the case of North Korea, of course, military action is off the table since it already has the bomb. But if the United States stiffens Japanese and Chinese resolve and takes the lead, there is no doubt that economic sanctions - real sanctions which include energy - would bring North Korea to its knees quickly.


The whole wide world is watching.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Sotomayor Ruled Against a Blogger



Written by Adam Bitely
Look's like Obama's new pick has some history in ruling against freedom of speech on blogs.

This gem comes from NBC:

President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

Gingrich calls Sotomayor a racist



Gingrich calls Sotomayor a racist

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama's U.S. Supreme Court pick is a racist and should withdraw her name from consideration. The Georgia Republican made his comment a say after Obama announced he was nominating appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the nation's highest court, ABC News reported Wednesday. Gingrich joined fellow conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, calling Sotomayor a "reverse racist."
The accusations came over comments Sotomayor made during a 2001 lecture at the University of California Berkeley. Referring to former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's saying that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," Sotomayor said,
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of
her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
In a post on Twitter, Gingrich shot back:
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman'" and "new racism is no better than old racism."

Read the Rest of the Story:

Your Weekly Trunk - Chairman Steele Leading Our Party Forward



Issue 12; May 28, 2009

Welcome to The Weekly Trunk -- The Republican National Committee's new weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. The goal of The Weekly Trunk is to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.
This week's issue features...

Chairman Steele Leading Our Party Forward
Republicans nationwide are taking notice of the hard work and dedication RNC Chairman Michael Steele brings to the job. (Andy Barr, "Steele Critics: RNC Chair Finding Mojo," Politico, 5/24/09)

Aiding and Abetting the Democrats
A revealing account of clear leftist partisanship by The New York Times in last year's presidential election. (John Hinderaker, "Killing A Story: How It's Done," Power Line, 5/17/09)
Obama ravages retirees' pension funds to protect his UAW cronies' jobs at Chrysler. (Editorial, "About Those 'Speculators'...Pension Funds Also Got Whacked by Uncle Sam," The Wall Street Journal, 5/21/09)

Self-Destructive Obsession
Nancy Pelosi is so consumed with vindictive desire to damage the previous administration, she's damaging herself even more to do it. (Rich Lowry, "A Martyr to Self-Righteousness: Pelosi is Sacrificing Her Credibility on the Altar of Moral Vanity and Rhetorical Excess," National Review, 5/19/09)
Charles Krauthammer: "If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush." (Charles Krauthammer, "Obama's Deeds Vindicate Bush," RealClearPolitics, 5/22/09)

"Red Asphalt is Often Paved With Good Intentions"
Barack Obama's drive to force Americans into ever smaller cars endangers their lives. (Greg Gutfeld, "Deadly Dreams in Tiny Cars," Big Hollywood, 5/19/09)

More Automotive Meddling
Consumer choice? Sorry folks, but Chief Automotive Officer Barack Obama will decide what kind of car you'll be driving. (Editorial, "Banning the Pickup Truck: Barack Obama Now Running the Automobile Industry," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/21/09)

Bureaucratic Red Tape vs. Free Market Efficiency
Months after promising transparency for "Stimulus" spending, the Obama Administration has provided hardly any information at all, while a private website provides plenty of details. (Alec MacGillis, "Tracking Stimulus Spending May Not Be as Easy as Promised," The Washington Post, 5/21/09)

Know Your Limitations
If the above articles didn't make the foolishness of the Obama Administration's attempts to muscle in on private enterprise clear, this should do it. (Editorial, "Why Government Can't Run a Business: Politicians Need Headlines. Executives Need Profits," The Wall Street Journal, 5/21/09)

Up To The Challenge?
When it comes to maintaining our nation's security, neither incompetence nor naiveté are acceptable. (Andrew C. McCarthy, "On 'Torture,' Holder Undoes Holder: The Attorney General Reveals His Legal Ignorance -- or, His Willful Inconsistency," National Review Online, 5/19/09)

This Joker is The Vice President?
Bungling Joe Biden continues to expand his infamous record of running his mouth when he should keep it shut. (Lili Ladaga, "Note to Joe: Don't Reveal Top-Secret Secrets," Yahoo News, 5/18/09)
The action star and martial arts champion comments on the leftist erosion of our freedoms of expression. (Chuck Norris, "Outlawing Opinion," Townhall.com, 5/19/09)
Remember when "you deserve a break today" meant only a trip to McDonalds? Now, it might as well be the motto of the Obama Democrats. Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson wants to force paid vacation days on employers during a recession. (Erika Lovely, "Alan Grayson to Introduce Paid Vacation Act," Politico, 5/21/09)

And lastly Check out this week's YouTube message from Wyoming Senator John Barrasso
here.
Republican National Committee 310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003p: 202.863.8500 f: 202.863.8820 e: info@gop.com

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
310 First Street, SE - Washington, D.C. 20003 - (202) 863-8500
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

RNC Meeting Notes - from BRUCE ASH, AZ GOP National Committeeman




Arizona GOP Leadership........Last week the RNC State Chairman's meeting took place in Maryland.I am honored to represent Arizona and the western region of the RNC on the Resolutions Committee. Three resolutions were passed during our special session last week. The dealt with :




1. Opposition to Bailouts & Reckless Spending......... This was passed out of the Resolutions Committee and the general session without amendments or opposition.




This was passed out of the Resolutions Committee and the general session without amendments or opposition.





3.Opposition the the democrats March Toward Socialism........Original version....The second PDF is the final version which was agreed upon by the RNC leadership and the sponsors of the resolution. It passed in the general session.




Each of these resolutions were sponsored by members who listened to their county chairmen, legislative district chairmen as well activists who are active in each of their state parties. Our next meeting will be the last week of July.




I welcome suggestions you may have for resolutions that reflect the sense of our great Republican Party here in Arizona.




If you do have any suggestions please fell free to contact me at 520-907-9326
(c), 520-795-2100X102(o) or 520-886-8002(h) or via e-mail. When I attend our meetings my job is to represent your interests and the interests of our activists. My goal is that Arizona Republicans always have a direct connection to our national party.




PLEASE pass this e-mail along to your list of LD Chairs and PC's so we may have improved communications on the news of the GOP. As always I invite any questions on the RNC you might have at this time.




All the best...............


Bruce Ash


National Committeeman




Click on the Resoultions Below to See Larger:










ObamaDoc Healthcare Cult: Don't Fear The Reaper





by Gayle Plato

D-Day is coming this year with a vengeance. The ObamaDoc Healthcare war lords are getting ready to attack. A media blitz is set to begin June 6, 2009, to convince the public that the stars of alignment are ushering in good medicine. Dr. Sanjay Gupta and other CNN Cultists are cranking out the muck-rake machinery. But then the astrology report of medical reform is more a Mercury retrograde, where everything goes awry.

One of the key edicts of any universal healthcare programming is the acceptance of death, sooner, and with less medical help. As I wrote of Princess Diana this week (
http://tinyurl.com/q4udfs), I noted how she died after nearly two hours on the side of the road, without more than oxygen and chest compressions administered. France has a universal healthcare system lauded for its sophistication. Yet, it has many flaws including a troubled urgent care system. They have no paramedics there, but a trained squad who come out and treat at the scene in a MASH crash truck-style delivery. But the golden hour of care slips away as a patient does not get screening, imaging, and hospital-based assessment. Diana might have lived if that crash happened in New York City or here in Phoenix.

One of the biggest complaints of ANY socialized medicine is the aspect of waiting for help. It’s rooted in what killed Princess Diana. The programs DO NOT support the equipment and facility upkeep. Every single federalized health program in any first world country faces patient waits for screening and testing. There just are not enough MRI and CAT scanner, radiology and angiogram services. Mammogram waits can be months and months. England and Canada are notorious for this too. You die waiting to get good help. Do not believe the numbers that Canadian patients have better results or at least similar after receiving angio or stents- truth is that a statistically significant number of people in dire straits do not live until they get to the top of the list and therefore fall out of the data pool.

Then there are the ethical realities. Many of us have faith-based values of the sanctity of life. Universal healthcare infringes on these values. Look at a controversial case in Winnipeg. Canadian doctors have a managed care directive to not treat once an elderly patient is deemed ‘not-viable’. But Samuel Golubchuk, 84, has been on life support with minimal brain function at the Winnipeg Grace Hospital since last fall. He is an Orthodox Jew and his daughter clearly stated that they feel God determines the end of life, not doctors. Medical professionals are bucking the system and helping this man in his last days (http://tinyurl.com/oagka4).

Last and first days of life are critical to universal healthcare in this way: caring for a pregnancy and raising a child to adulthood and into old age is much more expensive than aborting the baby early on. Caring for elderly and any high need human being, especially if deemed terminal will be determined as extraordinary and not on the list of acceptable care. It may not come out in so many words, but see the push for euthanasia and easy access abortion and morning after pill services happening. Its cheaper than keeping the meek alive. The meek cannot inherit an earth they are not on.

As I listen to music late this night, one of my favorite songs comes on and the lyrics stop me in my tracks. I think it might be a new the theme song of ObamaDoc Healthcare Overhall 2009- Don’t Fear the Reaper, by Blue Oyster Cult. Here’s a sample of the lyrics to jar your memory:


Came the last night of
sadness

And it was clear she couldn't go on
Then the door was open and the wind
appeared

The candles blew then
disappeared

The curtains flew then he
appeared...saying don't be afraid


Come on baby...and she had no fear And
she ran to him...then they started to fly

They looked backward and said
goodbye...she had become like they are

She had taken his hand...she had become like they are

Come on baby...don't fear the reaper”

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

REMINDER: Please join Senator John McCain for a GOP West Valley District Forum Thurs May 28 - 7:00PM ASU WEST


Hear Senator McCain discuss the issues of the day and participate in a Q & A session.

When: Thursday, May 28th, 2009
7:00 p.m. (PT)

Where: ASU West
University Center Building – La Sala Ballroom
4701 W. Thunderbird

Please RSVP to arizona@friendsofjohnmccain.com, or to Crystal Caballero at 602-339-0831.

Seating is limited and will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis.